Comparing Biomechanical Time Series Data During the Hang-Power Clean and Jump Shrug

Verbal instructions affect reactive strength index modified and time-series waveforms in basketball players

This study aimed to determine the effects of different verbal instructions, intended to affect the countermovement jump (CMJ) execution time, on the reactive strength index modified (RSIMod) and the time-series waveforms. Thirteen male basketball players performed six CMJs on a force plate with two different verbal instructions: 'jump as high as possible' (CMJhigh) and 'jump as high and as fast as possible' (CMJfast). Force-, power-, velocity-, and displacement-series waveforms, RSIMod and jump height were compared between conditions using statistical parametric mapping procedures. CMJfast showed greater values in RSIMod (p = 0.002) despite no differences in jump height (p = 0.345). Unweighting force (between 18% and 33% of total time) was lower in the CMJfast compared to CMJhigh. Larger force (between 53% and 63% of total time), velocity (between 31% and 48% of total time) and power (between 43% and 56% of total time) were found in the CMJfast compared to CMJhigh. These findings suggest that commanding athletes to jump as high and fast as possible increases rapid force production. Additionally, the results highlight the relevance of the countermovement phase in jumping and show that RSIMod could increase without power output modifications during propulsion, despite previous studies having reported positive associations between RSIMod propulsion power.

National Strength and Conditioning Association Position Statement on Weightlifting for Sports Performance

ABSTRACT

Comfort, P, Haff, GG, Suchomel, TJ, Soriano, MA, Pierce, KC, Hornsby, WG, Haff, EE, Sommerfield, LM, Chavda, S, Morris, SJ, Fry, AC, and Stone, MH. National Strength and Conditioning Association position statement on weightlifting for sports performance. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The origins of weightlifting and feats of strength span back to ancient Egypt, China, and Greece, with the introduction of weightlifting into the Olympic Games in 1896. However, it was not until the 1950s that training based on weightlifting was adopted by strength coaches working with team sports and athletics, with weightlifting research in peer-reviewed journals becoming prominent since the 1970s. Over the past few decades, researchers have focused on the use of weightlifting-based training to enhance performance in nonweightlifters because of the biomechanical similarities (e.g., rapid forceful extension of the hips, knees, and ankles) associated with the second pull phase of the clean and snatch, the drive/thrust phase of the jerk and athletic tasks such as jumping and sprinting. The highest force, rate of force development, and power outputs have been reported during such movements, highlighting the potential for such tasks to enhance these key physical qualities in athletes. In addition, the ability to manipulate barbell load across the extensive range of weightlifting exercises and their derivatives permits the strength and conditioning coach the opportunity to emphasize the development of strength-speed and speed-strength, as required for the individual athlete. As such, the results of numerous longitudinal studies and subsequent meta-analyses demonstrate the inclusion of weightlifting exercises into strength and conditioning programs results in greater improvements in force-production characteristics and performance in athletic tasks than general resistance training or plyometric training alone. However, it is essential that such exercises are appropriately programmed adopting a sequential approach across training blocks (including exercise variation, loads, and volumes) to ensure the desired adaptations, whereas strength and conditioning coaches emphasize appropriate technique and skill development of athletes performing such exercises.

Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull

This study examined the reliability, potential bias, and practical differences between the GymAware Powertool (GA), Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO), and Push Band 2.0 (PUSH) during the jump shrug (JS) and hang high pull (HHP) performed across a spectrum of loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed JS and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM hang power clean, and mean (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) were determined by each velocity measurement device. Least-products regression and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine instances of proportional, fixed, and systematic bias between the TENDO and PUSH compared to the GA. Hedge's g effect sizes were also calculated to determine any meaningful differences between devices. The GA and TENDO displayed excellent reliability and acceptable variability during the JS and HHP while the PUSH showed instances of poor-moderate reliability and unacceptable variability at various loads. While the TENDO and PUSH showed instances of various bias, the TENDO device demonstrated greater validity when compared to the GA. Trivial-small differences were shown between the GA and TENDO during the JS and HHP exercises while trivial-moderate differences existed between GA and PUSH during the JS. However, despite trivial-small effects between the GA and PUSH devices at 20 and 40% 1RM during the HHP, practically meaningful differences existed at 60, 80, and 100%, indicating that the PUSH velocity outputs were not accurate. The TENDO appears to be more reliable and valid than the PUSH when measuring MBV and PBV during the JS and HHP.

Propulsion Phase Characteristics of Loaded Jump Variations in Resistance-Trained Women

The purpose of this study was to compare the propulsion phase characteristics of the jump squat (JS), hexagonal barbell jump (HEXJ), and jump shrug (JShrug) performed across a spectrum of relative loads. Thirteen resistance-trained women (18-23 years old) performed JS, HEXJ, and JShrug repetitions at body mass (BM) or with 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% BM during three separate testing sessions. Propulsion mean force (MF), duration (Dur), peak power output (PP), force at PP (F_PP), and velocity at PP (V_PP) were compared between exercises and loads using a series of 3 × 6 repeated measures ANOVA and Hedge's g effect sizes. There were no significant differences in MF or Dur between exercises. While load-averaged HEXJ and JShrug PP were significantly greater than the JS, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. The JShrug produced significantly greater F_PP than the JS and HEXJ at loads ranging from BM-60% BM, but not at 80 or 100% BM. Load-averaged V_PP produced during the JS and HEXJ was significantly greater than the JShrug; however, there were no significant differences between exercises at any individual load. Practically meaningful differences between exercises indicated that the JShrug produced greater magnitudes of force during shorter durations compared to the JS and HEXJ at light loads (BM-40%). The JS and HEXJ may be classified as more velocity-dominant exercises while the JShrug may be more force-dominant. Thus, it is important to consider the context in which each exercise is prescribed for resistance-trained women to provide an effective training stimulus.

Muscle Architectural and Force-Velocity Curve Adaptations following 10 Weeks of Training with Weightlifting Catching and Pulling Derivatives

The aims of this study were to examine the muscle architectural, rapid force production, and force-velocity curve adaptations following 10 weeks of resistance training with either submaximal weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling (PULL) derivatives or pulling derivatives with phase-specific loading (OL). 27 resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups and completed pre- and post-intervention ultrasound, countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Vastus lateralis and biceps femoris muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length, CMJ force at peak power, velocity at peak power, and peak power, and IMTP peak force and force at 100-, 150-, 200-, and 250 ms were assessed. There were no significant or meaningful differences in muscle architecture measures for any group (p > 0.05). The PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.25-0.81) improvements in all CMJ variables while the CATCH group displayed trivial effects (g = 0.00-0.21). In addition, the OL group displayed trivial and small effects for CMJ force (g = -0.12-0.04) and velocity variables (g = 0.32-0.46), respectively. The OL group displayed moderate (g = 0.48-0.73) improvements in all IMTP variables while to PULL group displayed small-moderate (g = 0.47-0.55) improvements. The CATCH group displayed trivial-small (g = -0.39-0.15) decreases in IMTP performance. The PULL and OL groups displayed visible shifts in their force-velocity curves; however, these changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Performing weightlifting pulling derivatives with either submaximal or phase-specific loading may enhance rapid and peak force production characteristics. Strength and conditioning practitioners should load pulling derivatives based on the goals of each specific phase, but also allow their athletes ample exposure to achieve each goal.

Comparing biomechanical time series data across countermovement shrug loads

The effect of load on time-series data has yet to be investigated during weightlifting derivatives. This study compared the effect of load on the force-time and velocity-time curves during the countermovement shrug (CMS). Twenty-nine males performed the CMS at relative loads of 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140% one repetition maximum (1RM) power clean (PC). A force plate measured the vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), which was used to calculate the barbell-lifter system velocity. Time-series data were normalized to 100% of the movement duration and assessed via statistical parametric mapping (SPM). SPM analysis showed greater negative velocity at heavier loads early in the unweighting phase (12-38% of the movement), and greater positive velocity at lower loads during the last 16% of the movement. Relative loads of 40% 1RM PC maximised propulsion velocity, whilst 140% 1RM maximized force. At higher loads, the braking and propulsive phases commence at an earlier percentage of the time-normalized movement, and the total absolute durations increase with load. It may be more appropriate to prescribe the CMS during a maximal strength mesocycle given the ability to use supramaximal loads. Future research should assess training at different loads on the effects of performance.

Sample size estimation for biomechanical waveforms: Current practice, recommendations and a comparison to discrete power analysis

Testing a prediction is fundamental to scientific experiments. Where biomechanical experiments involve analysis of 1-Dimensional (waveform) data, sample size estimation should consider both 1D variance and hypothesised 1D effects. This study exemplifies 1D sample size estimation using typical biomechanical signals and contrasts this with 0D (discrete) power analysis. For context, biomechanics papers from 2018 and 2019 were reviewed to characterise current practice. Sample size estimation occurred in approximately 4% of 653 papers and reporting practice was mixed. To estimate sample sizes, common biomechanical signals were sourced from the literature and 1D effects were generated artificially using the open-source power1d software. Smooth Gaussian noise was added to the modelled 1D effect to numerically estimate the sample size required. Sample sizes estimated using 1D power procedures varied according to the characteristics of the dataset, requiring only small-to-moderate sample sizes of approximately 5-40 to achieve target powers of 0.8 for reported 1D effects, but were always larger than 0D sample sizes (from N + 1 to >N + 20). The importance of a priori sample size estimation is highlighted and recommendations are provided to improve the consistency of reporting. This study should enable researchers to construct 1D biomechanical effects to address adequately powered, hypothesis-driven, predictive research questions.

Comparison of the Power Output Between the Hang Power Clean and Hang High Pull Across a Wide Range of Loads in Weightlifters

ABSTRACT

Takei, S, Hirayama, K, and Okada, J. Comparison of the power output between the hang power clean and hang high pull across a wide range of loads in weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 35(2S): S84-S88, 2021-The current study compared the peak power output during the hang power clean (HPC) and hang high pull (HHP) across a wide range of external loads in weightlifters. Eight weightlifters completed 1 repetition maximum (1RM) assessment for the HPC (1.59 ± 0.17 kg/body mass) and a power test for the HPC and HHP at relative loads of 40, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95, and 100% 1RM of the HPC. The ground reaction force and 2-dimensional bar position data were recorded to determine the system (barbell + body mass) kinetics and bar height, respectively. System power was calculated as force multiplied by system velocity. The HHP produced significantly greater peak power than the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. Conversely, there was no statistical or practical difference in peak power between the exercises at 80, 90, 95, and 100% 1RM. No significant interaction was found in force at peak power, whereas velocity at peak power was significantly greater during the HHP than during the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. In addition, significantly greater peak bar height was observed for the HHP than the HPC at 40, 60, and 70% 1RM. From the power output comparisons across loads, the HHP should be used over the HPC at loads of 40-70% 1RM, whereas the HPC and HHP can be interchangeably used at loads of 80-100% 1RM.

Training With Weightlifting Derivatives: The Effects of Force and Velocity Overload Stimuli

Suchomel, TJ, McKeever, SM, and Comfort, P. Training with weightlifting derivatives: The effects of force and velocity overload stimuli. J Strength Cond Res 34(7): 1808-1818, 2020-The purposes of this study were to compare the training effects of weightlifting movements performed with (CATCH) or without (PULL) the catch phase of clean derivatives performed at the same relative loads or training without the catch phase using a force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus (OL) on isometric and dynamic performance tasks. Twenty-seven resistance-trained men completed 10 weeks of training as part of the CATCH, PULL, or OL group. The CATCH group trained using weightlifting catching derivatives, while the PULL and OL groups used biomechanically similar pulling derivatives. The CATCH and PULL groups were prescribed the same relative loads, while the OL group was prescribed force- and velocity-specific loading that was exercise and phase specific. Preintervention and postintervention isometric midthigh pull (IMTP), relative one repetition maximum power clean (1RM PC), 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprint, and 505 change of direction on the right (505R) and left (505L) leg were examined. Statistically significant differences in preintervention to postintervention percent change were present for relative IMTP peak force, 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprints, and 505L (all p < 0.03), but not for relative 1RM PC or 505R (p > 0.05). The OL group produced the greatest improvements in each of the examined characteristics compared with the CATCH and PULL groups with generally moderate to large practical effects being present. Using a force- and velocity-specific overload stimulus with weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce superior adaptations in relative strength, sprint speed, and change of direction compared with submaximally loaded weightlifting catching and pulling derivatives.

The Effect of Training with Weightlifting Catching or Pulling Derivatives on Squat Jump and Countermovement Jump Force-Time Adaptations

The purpose of this study was to examine the changes in squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) force-time curve characteristics following 10 weeks of training with either load-matched weightlifting catching (CATCH) or pulling derivatives (PULL) or pulling derivatives that included force- and velocity-specific loading (OL). Twenty-five resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to the CATCH, PULL, or OL groups. Participants completed a 10 week, group-specific training program. SJ and CMJ height, propulsion mean force, and propulsion time were compared at baseline and after 3, 7, and 10 weeks. In addition, time-normalized SJ and CMJ force-time curves were compared between baseline and after 10 weeks. No between-group differences were present for any of the examined variables, and only trivial to small changes existed within each group. The greatest improvements in SJ and CMJ height were produced by the OL and PULL groups, respectively, while only trivial changes were present for the CATCH group. These changes were underpinned by greater propulsion forces and reduced propulsion times. The OL group displayed significantly greater relative force during the SJ and CMJ compared to the PULL and CATCH groups, respectively. Training with weightlifting pulling derivatives may produce greater vertical jump adaptations compared to training with catching derivatives.